Friday, April 05, 2013

If the country becomes a failed state, the biggest winner will be
al Qaeda. Our allies will be the losers.

In response to recent reports
that the Assad regime in Syria may have used chemical weapons against the rebel
opposition, President Obama declared that such a development, if confirmed,
would be a "game changer."

But regardless of the kind of
weapons Assad is using to slaughter his people, Syria is already a moral and
strategic calamity that is growing worse by the day, not only for Syrians and
their neighbors but also for vital national interests of the United States.
That is why it is already past time for a change in American policy toward
Syria.

With over 70,000 dead, more than
a million refugees and no end in sight, it may seem difficult to imagine how
the situation in Syria could get any worse—but it can and will, if the current
course is allowed to continue.

Assad's killing machine is
tearing Syria to pieces, miring the country deeper and deeper in a sectarian
civil war that could rage for years. The biggest winner if Syria becomes a
failed state is likely to be al Qaeda, which is already making inroads by
exploiting the anger of Syrians at the West for our refusal to provide them
with the help they need.

In addition to giving Islamist
extremists a new foothold in the heart of the Middle East, a radicalized and
balkanized Syria is also certain to spill over, threatening the stability and
security of other states in the region, including U.S. allies in Jordan,
Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel.

This is very much like the
nightmare scenario the U.S. confronted in Iraq in 2006—a catastrophe that was
only narrowly averted because of the troop surge. As in Iraq, it is not too
late for the U.S. to change course to salvage its Syria policy, but time is
running out.

Unfortunately, actions that might
have been decisive if undertaken earlier are now likely to be inadequate.
Providing weapons directly to the Syrian opposition is still absolutely
necessary, but it is no longer likely to be sufficient, by itself, to change
Assad's calculations or to alter the trajectory of the conflict.

Such an effort to arm the
opposition—particularly if it is attempted in secret—will also do nothing to
address the fury of ordinary Syrians toward the U.S., whom they understandably
see as callously indifferent to their suffering.

What is required now is a limited
campaign of U.S.-led airstrikes to neutralize Assad's planes, helicopters and
ballistic missiles, which are being used to terrorize the Syrian population.
Taking such a step would not require the U.S. to act unilaterally, nor would it
involve any American boots on the ground.

At the very least, U.S. Patriot
missile-defense batteries that are already deployed near the Turkish-Syrian
border could be used to stop the barrages of Assad's Scud missiles that have
been raining down indiscriminately on the towns and cities of northern Syria.

There is no more stark
illustration of our refusal to help Syrians, despite having the military means
to do so, than the continuing devastation caused by the Syrian regime's
ballistic missiles mere miles away from our Patriot batteries.

Conversely, if the Patriots were
used to establish a safe zone in northern Syria, they would instantly become a
powerful symbol of U.S. solidarity with Syrians, bolstering moderates in the
opposition and giving them the space they need to organize inside the country.

America and its allies also need
to start genuine planning for the day after Assad goes.

As in the Balkans in the 1990s,
peacekeeping forces will be needed if there is any prospect of holding Syria
together, along with a large-scale international effort to train Syrian forces
that can maintain security. If we wait until after Assad falls to begin this
discussion, it will be too late.

It is often said that the longer
the conflict in Syria grinds on, the worse the situation on the ground grows.
That is true. But it is equally true that the longer the U.S. refuses to lead,
the higher the cost will be when America ultimately decides it must get
involved because of the country's vital national interests at stake in Syria.

Rather than waiting for proof
that Assad has used his chemical weapons, the United States should introduce
its own game-changer to the conflict: strong, decisive leadership.

*A version of this article
appeared April 3, 2013, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street
Journal.

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

Copyright Notice

JIW includes excerpts from many sources using their copyright material for the purpose of education and discussion only, and not for profit. We acknowledge and link to our sources.We reserve all rights to our own original material, including the excerpted and edited version of the source material. However you are welcome to use JIW material freely for the purpose of education and discussion only, and not for profit, and provided proper acknowledgement is included.